Semi-Pro

Yes, tell us about how Seppi and Millman are still dominating. Tell us about Berdych and Tsonga's domination as well.

At his peak (2004-2007), he lost to Safin, Kuerten and Nadal x 3. So 2 older and one younger GOAT candidate, at his best slam. Then during the rest of his prime, he lost to Nadal × 3, Djokovic and Del Potro. 2 GOAT candidates, one bizarre loss to a next gen player in fantastic form. Nothing at all surprising there.

This has nothing to do with Fed's generation being poor and everything to do with Nadal being so strong. And the lack of losses after his prime to the previous generation is obvious. They were OLD. Why should they beat him?

The fact that you prop up Fed's 2015 season as his best shows your agenda. From 2014-17, he lost to Nadal, Gulbis, Djokovic x 4, Cilic, Seppi, Wawrinka, Raonic and Del Potro. And that's with missing 3 slams. As opposed to Safin, Kuerten and Nadal x 3 in his real peak.

Professional

Yes, tell us about how Seppi and Millman are still dominating. Tell us about Berdych and Tsonga's domination as well.

At his peak (2004-2007), he lost to Safin, Kuerten and Nadal x 3. So 2 older and one younger GOAT candidate, at his best slam. Then during the rest of his prime, he lost to Nadal × 3, Djokovic and Del Potro. 2 GOAT candidates, one bizarre loss to a next gen player in fantastic form. Nothing at all surprising there.

This has nothing to do with Fed's generation being poor and everything to do with Nadal being so strong. And the lack of losses after his prime to the previous generation is obvious. They were OLD. Why should they beat him?

The fact that you prop up Fed's 2015 season as his best shows your agenda. From 2014-17, he lost to Nadal, Gulbis, Djokovic x 4, Cilic, Seppi, Wawrinka, Raonic and Del Potro. And that's with missing 3 slams. As opposed to Safin, Kuerten and Nadal x 3 in his real peak.

Well he practically didnt lose to anyone outside Nadal before FO2010 (except one loss to AO08 champion Djokovic and USO09 champion Delpo). Until FO2010 he only lost to the upcoming champions.

From 2010 and on he was 29y old, and its pretty much expected that the main rivals of a 29y-38y old are younger than him. The right question is why the biggest rivals of a soon-to-be 32y old Djokovic are still older than him?

Hall of Fame

This thread shows how Federer has.had the toughest competition, demolishing his own generation then competing against ATGs five or six years younger than him.

Djokodal have had zero competition from younger players. The generation five/six years younger than them (thiem, pcb, that's about it) is even worse than the lost gen. There's barely any players of that age bracket ranked in the top 50.

The next gen are not good enough yet to challenge them either, we can't call Tsitsipas elite competition when he's still losing to players like Dzumhur.

Could've fooled me. The only contributions you seem to make to the discussion here are stats, a form of mathematics. It's reasonable to say you lose fewer matches when you're playing better. Federer lost way fewer matches during his actual peak compared to his fabricated peak (2015-16) which is only really held to be his peak by some Djokodal fans.

Your original conclusion has been shown to be flawed. But even if it were true, it's irrelevant to Fed's competition given he's been playing younger generations at slam level since 2005, i.e. for nearly 14 years. So it's not like he's had a free ride

Professional

This thread shows how Federer has.had the toughest competition, demolishing his own generation then competing against ATGs five or six years younger than him.

Djokodal have had zero competition from younger players. The generation five/six years younger than them (thiem, pcb, that's about it) is even worse than the lost gen. There's barely any players of that age bracket ranked in the top 50.

The next gen are not good enough yet to challenge them either, we can't call Tsitsipas elite competition when he's still losing to players like Dzumhur.

Both the previous and the following gens didn't produce ATGs, but Federer's gen was weaker than Nadal/Djokovic's gen. The third best of 1986-87 reached more slam finals than 1972-85's second and third best combined.

As ATGs age, their greatest challenge should come from younger players because in the past a tennis player's peak was around age 24. Tennis in 2005 was becoming more and more competitive, but only at the top, which is why a few players have almost all the titles. The rot we see right now was already starting.

When aging players are not being challenged by younger players, something is really wrong with tennis.

Djokovic is not being challenged at an age when he should be challenged because there is a vacuum currently below the very top. We have not seen anything like it since Laver and Rosewall burst on the scene in 1968.